asl
play

ASL Introduction AIRS Tropospheric CO 2 and (Upper-Trop) CH4 Ocean - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 10, 2023 •252 likes •492 views

ASL Introduction AIRS Tropospheric CO 2 and (Upper-Trop) CH4 Ocean CO2 CH 4 retrievals. AIRS CO2 vs CarbonTracker Land CO2 Retrievals Breno Imbiriba, Larrabee Strow, Sergio de Souza-Machado, Land CO2 vs CT and Scott Hannon. Atmospheric

  1. ASL Introduction AIRS Tropospheric CO 2 and (Upper-Trop) CH4 Ocean CO2 CH 4 retrievals. AIRS CO2 vs CarbonTracker Land CO2 Retrievals Breno Imbiriba, Larrabee Strow, Sergio de Souza-Machado, Land CO2 vs CT and Scott Hannon. Atmospheric Spectroscopy Laboratory (ASL) University of Maryland Baltimore County Physics Department and the Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology AIRS Science Team Meeting - Greenbelt, MD October 14, 2008 1 / 23

  2. ASL Overview Interested in measuring CO 2 and CH 4 with AIRS/IASI/CrIS Primary interest is rates, for monitoring growth of greenhouse Introduction forcing gases CH4 Ocean CO2 Using simple techniques to get rates quickly. AIRS CDS is AIRS CO2 vs data source (mostly), so no CC’d data used. CarbonTracker Land CO2 We use ECMWF temperature fields, and ... Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT Internal diagnostics show ECMWF temperature fields (for troposphere) are good enough. 4-year CO 2 climatology published in JGR in Sept. 2008 This presentation: CH 4 growth rates Comparison of 4-year CO 2 climatology to NOAA CarbonTracker (CT) Progress in CO 2 retrievals (300-600 mbar range) over land, esp. with regard to cloud filtering 2 / 23

  3. ASL Use of ECMWF ECMWF uses radiosonde measurements as the “anchoring network” of observations for the ECMWF tropospheric temperatures Introduction with no bias correction, see Auligne, T., A. McNally, and D. Dee (2007), CH4 Adaptive bias correction for satellite data in a numerical weather prediction Ocean CO2 system, QJRMS, 133 , 631–642, doi10.1002/qj.56 . AIRS CO2 vs CarbonTracker ECWMF T ( z ) fields are essentially optimially interpolated Land CO2 radiosondes, AIRS/IASI radiances are bias-adjusted to agree with Retrievals radiosondes Land CO2 vs CT Bias of AIRS vs ECMWF has a standard deviation in CO 2 channels at the AIRS noise level - before and after assimilation of AIRS at ECMWF . 4-year CO 2 growth rates derived from AIRS biases relative to ECMWF gives 2.2 ppm/year ± 0.2 ppm/year, compared to MLO in-situ rate of 2.05 ppm/year. This difference corresponds to 5mK/year difference in BT units. 3 / 23

  4. ASL CH 4 : IPCC Report Shows Growth Slowing Introduction CH4 Ocean CO2 AIRS CO2 vs CarbonTracker Land CO2 Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT 4 / 23

  5. ASL CH 4 Climatology One CH 4 channel used: 1303.2 cm − 1 One CO 2 line (with similar dBT/dT to 1303.3 cm − 1 CH 4 line) Introduction used to correct for variability in ECMWF upper-trop CH4 Ocean CO2 temperatures). AIRS CO2 vs dBT/dCH4 peaks ∼ 300 mbar CarbonTracker Land CO2 Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT 5 / 23

  6. ASL CH 4 Growth Rates Growth rate measured as a function of latitude 36 month growth rate = 0.90 ± 3.9 ppb/year Introduction 48 month growth rate = -1.1 ± 3.2 ppm/year CH4 Comparable to IPCC published rates, much lower than ∼ 15 Ocean CO2 ppm/year growth rates in the 70’s and 80’s. AIRS CO2 vs CarbonTracker Land CO2 Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT 6 / 23

  7. AIRS vs. CarbonTracker ASL CT Convolved with (dBT/dCO 2 ) L Introduction CH4 Ocean CO2 AIRS CO2 vs CarbonTracker Land CO2 Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT 7 / 23

  8. ASL AIRS Minus CarbonTracker Introduction CH4 Ocean CO2 AIRS CO2 vs CarbonTracker Land CO2 Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT 8 / 23

  9. ASL AIRS vs. CarbonTracker: Avg. of 20N to 50N Introduction CH4 Ocean CO2 AIRS CO2 vs CarbonTracker Land CO2 Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT 9 / 23

  10. ASL AIRS vs. CarbonTracker: Avg. of 20S to 50S Introduction CH4 Ocean CO2 AIRS CO2 vs CarbonTracker Land CO2 Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT 10 / 23

  11. Conclusions: AIRS Ocean CO 2 vs ASL CarbonTracker (CT) General agreement between AIRS and CT AIRS tropical CO 2 cycle more intense Introduction CH4 In NH, CT CO 2 general grows more quickly, AIRS and CT Ocean CO2 decrease in summer months generally similar AIRS CO2 vs CarbonTracker In SH winter, AIRS CO 2 lower than CT, otherwise similar Land CO2 AIRS may be key instrument for improving CO 2 transport Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT models, but more validation needed. 11 / 23

  12. ASL CO 2 General Retrieval Approach Input is clear FOVS in AIRS CDS SW and LW approach, Used LW for ocean, but SW appears Introduction better over land CH4 Use channels sensitive to mid tropospheric CO 2 Ocean CO2 Narrow “Q branch” ν 2 transition at 791 . 75 cm − 1 (LW) AIRS CO2 vs Broad “R branch” ν 3 transition around 2387 − 2390 cm − 1 (SW). CarbonTracker Land CO2 Peak at 450mbar (Mid-Troposphere) ≈ 6 . 7Km. Can be much Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT lower over land in tropics. 12 / 23

  13. ASL Retrieval Steps Assume ECMWF has good temperature profile ( unbiased ). Correct for surface temperature and overall water content. Introduction CH4 In each band, solve for CO 2 and T s . Ocean CO2 For example LW: AIRS CO2 vs 790 cm − 1 (no sensitivity to CO 2 ) CarbonTracker 791 cm − 1 (right on a CO 2 line). Land CO2 Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT B 790 obs − B 790 J 790 = T s δ T s calc B 791 obs − B 791 J 791 T s δ T s + J 791 = T CO 2 δ CO 2 calc Emissivity errors (and others) go into the “effective” T s . Corrections are applied on sensitive channels Also accounts for very low clouds (below the sensitivity of the weighting function). 13 / 23

  14. New Steps to Approach ppm Level CO 2 ASL Retrievals over Land Cloud contamination is key issue, especially cirrus Detection of clouds more difficult over land Introduction CH4 Will present new cloud flag concept Ocean CO2 Retrieved CO 2 depends on secant angle due to RTA errors AIRS CO2 vs CarbonTracker (up to 6 ppm max) Land CO2 Methodology to correct RTA errors (calibration) does not Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT require external calibration data Will show comparisons to CarbonTracker for three months 14 / 23

  15. Land CO 2 Complicated by Cloud ASL Contamination Empirically based cloud flag being tested. Uses ECMWF atmospheric fields to determine best cloud flag. Introduction Compute three biases across thermal window: 822 cm − 1 (cirrus), CH4 961 cm − 1 (2616 cm − 1 ), 1231 cm − 1 . Combine as RGB. Ocean CO2 √ 3 G − B tan ( h ) = R − G − B is X-axis, Y-axis is CO 2 , color is FOV count AIRS CO2 vs 2 CarbonTracker Land CO2 Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT 15 / 23

  16. Satellite Zenith Angle Correction ASL Assumes ECMWF Error independent of zenith angle RTA spectroscopy errors will accumulate acording to the secant of satellite zenith angle . Introduction CO 2 versus sec θ sz fit to a quadratic function: CH4 CO 2 = A sec 2 θ sz + B sec θ sz + C . Ocean CO2 Will adjust CO 2 ppm according to: AIRS CO2 vs CarbonTracker CO 2 new = CO 2 − A ( sec 2 θ sz − 1 ) − B ( sec θ sz − 1 ) . Land CO2 Note: nadir needs ∼ 8 ppm spectroscopy correction (alpha) Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT 16 / 23

  17. Mauna Loa Calibration ASL Shown after 8 ppm correction 8 ppm correction same as correction derived from zenith angle bias! Introduction CH4 Ocean CO2 AIRS CO2 vs CarbonTracker Land CO2 Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT 5 deg box around the island - Fit for the 2004 annual mean. 17 / 23

  18. Comparison of Land CO 2 to CT for Several ASL Months Results clearly show seasonal patterns. Over Ocean - reasonably confident, validated. Introduction CH4 Over Land - retrievals are ∼ 2-6 ppm higher than CT Ocean CO2 See more CO 2 structure over land than CT. AIRS CO2 vs CarbonTracker Cloud filtering algorithms significantly improved. Land CO2 Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT 18 / 23

  19. ASL July 2003 Introduction CH4 Ocean CO2 AIRS CO2 vs CarbonTracker Land CO2 Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT 19 / 23

  20. ASL April 2004 Introduction CH4 Ocean CO2 AIRS CO2 vs CarbonTracker Land CO2 Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT 20 / 23

  21. ASL August 2004 Introduction CH4 Ocean CO2 AIRS CO2 vs CarbonTracker Land CO2 Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT 21 / 23

  22. ASL December 2004 Introduction CH4 Ocean CO2 AIRS CO2 vs CarbonTracker Land CO2 Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT 22 / 23

  23. ASL Conclusions, Land CO 2 Retrievals Land CO 2 retrievals in the 400-550 mbar region are very sensitive to cloud contamination, cloud flag is improving Introduction May test algorithm on CC’d data. CH4 Ocean CO2 May have calibration correction that doesn’t require external AIRS CO2 vs data for absolute accuracy (secant angle correction). CarbonTracker Land CO2 Comparisons to CT are encouraging, but biased high. Retrievals Land CO2 vs CT Need to process large amount of data in order to maximize number of coincidences with validation data. 23 / 23

Recommend

More recommend